JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the defendant of an original suit bearing O.S. No.273/2008 which was pending on the file of the Court of Addl. Civil Judge, Bagalkot. Respondent was the plaintiff in the said suit. 2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for the relief of possession in respect of the property bearing CTS No.131/C measuring 22.58 sq. feet situated in ward No.9 of Bagalkot City. Plaintiff was the owner of the property in question and defendant was a tenant under him. Defendant is still running a General Store under the name of Style “Swadeshi General Stores” and the same is situated by the side of M.G. Road, Bagalkot. The defendant had contested the same on various grounds. Tenancy had been terminated by the plaintiff by issuing notice as contemplated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant had denied the termination notice and the entitlement of the plaintiff to seek possession. 3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he has duly terminated the tenancy of the defendant form the suit property U/Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act? 2. Whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid is insufficient? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages for use and occupation of the suit property? 5. What order or decree? 4. Plaintiff came to be examined as PW.1 and 5 exhibits have been got marked on his behalf. Defendant came to be examined as DW.1 and 9 exhibits have been got marked on his behalf. Ultimately, suit came to be decreed answering all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, appeal came to be filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. before the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot in R.A. No.51/2010. The said appeal has also been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the defendant is before this Court. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. is filed along with four documents. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot in R.A. No.51/2010. The said appeal has also been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said concurrent findings, the defendant is before this Court. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. is filed along with four documents. Document No.1 is the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 24.11.2007 intending to acquire the suit schedule property and document No.2 is the final notification published under Section 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Gazettee Notification on 15.12.1997. Certified copy of the notice issued under Section 9(1) and 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act is document No.3. Certified copy of the award passed under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition is document No.4. Appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists in view of subsequent acquisition of the suit property?” 6. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/respondent fairly submits that the acquisition property in question is not in dispute and he fairly submits that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been taken by the plaintiff. This would clearly go to show that the plaintiff has lost all the rights that he has in respect of the suit schedule property. He has no objection to consider these documents as additional evidence without marking the same since these are the certified copies of the proceedings of a quasi judicial authority empowered to acquire the land in accordance law, these documents have been taken into consideration. The moment possession is taken under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the owner loses all the rights and such property vests in the Government. In this view of the matter, the property in question has vested in the Government and the plaintiff is no more the owner of the property in question. This is further supported by the fact of owner taking the compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer. When such is the case, the matter is between the acquiring body and the defendant. If the defendant has not physically handed over the property to the acquiring body, it is for the acquiring body to take all the steps under law considering him as unauthorised occupant. 7. When such is the case, the matter is between the acquiring body and the defendant. If the defendant has not physically handed over the property to the acquiring body, it is for the acquiring body to take all the steps under law considering him as unauthorised occupant. 7. Suffice to state that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the plaintiff and defendant and thus, the very suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the subsequent act of acquiring the property and taking possession of the property in accordance with law. 8. In this view of the matter, substantial question of law No.1 will have to be answered in the affirmative. In the light of there being no jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the judgment of the Trial Court which is affirmed in the First Appellate Court will have to be set aside by allowing the appeal. ORDER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. is allowed. Judgment passed in O.S. No.273/2008 which is confirmed in R.A. No.51/2010 is set aside. Suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the suit, the acquiring body is at liberty to take suitable steps in accordance with law against the defendant who is stated to be still running the shop in question. There is no order as to costs.